Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.

Do not post users' personal information.

Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.

Vote based on quality, not opinion.

Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.

Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.

Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.

Submissions must be an original source.

An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.

Articles must be written in English

An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.

Spam is bad!

If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.

The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

Edit: I just heard on NPR thatt Obama is going to support Feinstein's "assault weapons" ban. Please copy the post below and email it to your local representative. Let them know we want real action against gun violence, not hasty legislation that effects law abiding citizens.

Obviously such a topic as gun control is heavily weighted in emotion on both sides of the debate. I for one, find legislation based on evidence to be far superior than legislation based on emotion. I will make my case, and let you decide the action we should take.

It is often said we should adopt the ways of the UK and Australia and severely restrict or ban certain types of firearms. It is said the resulting drop in gun crime is evidence that gun control is effective.

In judging the effectiveness of such measures, I looked at the intentional homicide rate of the UK, Australia, and the US.

It's interesting that England's intentional homicide rate actually rose slightly in the years following the gun ban. Not saying the two are related, but a ban on guns did not decrease the overall homicide rate. In recent years, the rate has dropped to levels prior to the ban.

The Australian gun legislation took place in 1996. Let's look at those numbers: 1990-2.0, 1991-1.9, 1992-1.7 1993-1.7, 1994-1.8, 1995-1.8, 1996-1.7, 1997-1.73, 1998-1.52, 1999-1.81, 2000-1.89, 2001-1.79, 2002-1.86, 2003-1.71, 2004-1.5, 2005-1.48, 2006-1.56, 2007-1.35 The intentional homicide rose in the years following the ban, though they seem to be dropping in recent years.

The US has a much higher intentional homicide rate than either of these two countries, but the data shows much a larger decrease in the rate since 1990: 1990-9.4, 1991-9.8, 1992-9.3, 1993-9.5, 1994-9.0, 1995-8.22, 1996-7.41, 1997-6.8, 1998-6.3, 1999-5.7, 2000-5.5, 2001-5.6, 2002-5.6, 2003-5.7, 2004-5.5, 2005-5.6, 2006-5.7, 2007-5.6 The "assault weapon" ban was enacted in 1994 and ended in 2004.

Though it may seem like the AWB was successful in lowering homicide, a 2002 CDC report found that:

"During 2000--2002,the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent nonfederal task force,conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence,including violent crimes,suicide,and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition,restrictions on firearm acquisition,waiting periods for firearm acquisition,firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws,child access prevention laws,zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools,and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be confused for evidence of ineffectiveness)." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Furthermore, the US has witnessed continued drops in violent crime in recent years despite great increases in gun sales, the end of the "assault weapons" ban, and passages of concealed carry laws in the states. All of the evidence suggests, while an increase of guns do not cause violent crime to drop, it certainly does not cause violent crime to increase.

I propose an idea that should help our country more than a knee-jerk reactions to ban firearms based on aesthetics. 1. Legalize and tax Cannabis and treat drug addiction as a disease- This would free up resources for law enforcement to focus on violent crime and help reduce gang-related violence. 2. Create universal healthcare, and have companies offset the cost of employees (similar to the current system of privatized insurance we have now). Private companies will still exist so consumers can have a choice. Insurance must also cover family planning and mental services. 3. Stop defunding education- education is the cornerstone of a well-mannered, well-functioning society and is linked to socio-economic status. 4. Stop cutting social welfare programs. 5. Create harsher penalties for violent crimes, including crimes due to negligence. 6. Teach firearm safety in school.

I'm sure many of you will disagree with me, because it is easy to blame violence on guns. They're tangible. They're physical. Firearms are all too often the tools used to commit great atrocity. But you have to ask, given the evidence at hand, will this call for control really prevent anything? Remember the last call for action due to tragedy gave us the Patriot Act and the TSA.

Agree, well done. It would be helpful if we had good data on how many incidents there have been where the presence of a firearm has prevented crime. Anecdotal evidence indicates that it's more common than people know, to the point that such incidents often don't even make the news.

I haven't seen any proposals that would address the fact there are a large number of firearms, high capacity magazines and stores of ammo that would potentially be banned already in existence. I can't imagine that there would be public support for confiscation or the type of measures taken in Australia.

Most recently with the off duty cop used a gun to stop someone from being murdered in San Antonio. Then there was a citizen with a concealed carry who stopped a stabbing spree in a grocery in Colorado.

It would be helpful if we had good data on how many incidents there have been where the presence of a firearm has prevented crime. Anecdotal evidence indicates that it's more common than people know, to the point that such incidents often don't even make the news.

I'm trying to find the sources I found when I looked into this a few years ago. The conclusion I came up with is that law-abiding citizens use firearms to prevent or defend against crime about 2.5 to 3 million times a year. Often without even firing a shot.

Australia spent over $500 million in confiscating 650,000 firearms with "buy backs". There are something like 300 million firearms in the US. Do you see anything like that happening in the US? Nope, not a chance.

Holy shit, man, you get it, and you're able to explain it as well. Why can't other redditors get on board with this? Everyone is so quick to want to give up their freedoms in the face of tragedy without trying to fix the underlying problems.

There is a fair bit of material that supports socioeconomics and mental health as items that would have a bigger impact on gun crime (or just crime in general) but the question is what can be done?

The same lobby that wants to keep the guns is in the same corner as the ones who want to cut mental health programs, weaken the earning power of unskilled/low skilled labor, and cut social welfare.

Which one of the many things in the red corner do we try to take on to have an impact if they are all non-starters?

A small aside, the decline in asylums over the last 100 years has reinserted a large number of people who may or may not be prepared to be in the general population. Society may have been better served to have a place for disturbed people to stay, tend garden, watch tv, and stay out of trouble.

This is what sucks about being a pro-gun progressive. Progressives are unanimously up in arms (pun not intended) to "do something" which is use government to forcefully remove peoples' freedoms. I believe that many, many problems would be solved by making full health coverage to available to everyone for cheap or free, but the same people who share my views about guns also want to gut all of the social support systems, which will inevitably lead to more violence. Frustrates me to no end, it does.

Add me to the list. I had a CC in VA and own several handguns and rifles. I was even a member of the NRA (for $25) because I used their indoor range at their HQs.

I believe there are other ways to reduce (impossible to stop them all) these types of events but people do not see or refuse to see the benefits and we are too quick to just blame the guns. Blaming the guns (and the bullets) is easy (simple minded) first level thinking.

I think it is completely disingenuous to compare the social safety net of the USA with that of the UK or Australia. Never mind the prevailing social attitudes. It really is comparing apples with pineapples. Well, they both have apples in the spelling!?

This article is deceptive, selective in its findings and quite misleading, it fails to depict the full effects of the ban. There are also other countries that followed a similar ban and have shown varying outcomes. Focusing just on Australia, lets look at some of the statistics more closely.

More specifically violent crime incidents that followed the 1997 ban, which according to 2007 data saw an:

Increase of Armed robbery by %66

Increase in Unarmed robberies by 37%

Increase in Assaults rose by 24%

Increase in Kidnappings rose by 43%

Decrease in Gun involved Homicide by 3%, but manslaughter rose by 16%.

I havent even mentioned the UK, which despite a similar gun ban actually saw an increase in gun relate homicide and of course enough knife related murders that the Guardian has a section dedicated to knife crime now.

Sources: Australian Institute of Criminology, USAToday, Mouzos and Carcach, Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4

Last year, there was a shooting not too far from where I live and it made national news. In fact, there is evidence that criminals don't even want guns due to the cost of getting them and the risks associated with them (minimum 5 year sentences for gun related crimes). This all seems pretty simple to me, stiffer gun control = less gun crime. How many more school shootings do we have to hear about until Americans start to understand this??

What a load of twaddle. Any crime expert will tell you that comparing 'violent crime' figures between countries is an utterly pointless exercise, as countries differ hugely on what they consider 'violent crime' and countries vary vastly in how as well as how effectively they record it. The government in the Uk received particular opprobium from the public for how much the police force spent time on paperwork - in other words, documenting all crimes, no matter how small - here from the same alarmist right-wing paper you linked (and just like yours, a five year old link). Comparing the homicide rate is much better as there is less variance in its categorization. So, homicide rate. In the US: 4.2. In the UK : 1.2. Something to do with the easy availability of guns in the US compared to the UK? I would think so!

I remember I used to work night-shift at a photocopying place - the street was home of several heroin junkies. They would sometimes run inside, jog downstairs to the toilet and lock themselves to inject their grub. Once one of the guys stabbed another one on the doorstep of the shop round the corner. So this was part of the violence of violent UK you talk about. Now, I stayed on for a while as I needed the money. One of the key reasons was because this was in London, the UK and not in US. If one of those guys had come in with a knife, there was a long wooden desk which separated the till from the floorshop, so to get me it would have involved a lot of jumping over barriers and chasing. I felt pretty confident I could handle it as I'm pretty agile, and these were silly junkies. However, one of those guys came in with a gun? Game over. I would never have taken that job in the US.

Claiming our lack of free speech is a direct result of our gun control is a load of BS and you know it. They are two completely separate issues entirely. And our government is no longer afraid of its people? What is that? Our government is afraid of losing votes as much as any other democratic government and the fact that we are not armed to the teeth has nothing to do with it. I honestly cannot believe that the militia argument can still hold any water in this day and age.

4.8 homicides per 100,000 in the United States in 2010. I'm going to use 1.0 for the average for most of our 1st world country peers. The third world countries that report 1.0 don't count because some things that we would consider murder they do not. Think honor killings of women etc.

So we're roughly 5 times more likely to be involved in a homicide in the States than say Ireland in 2010. But you're really only about .0038% more likely to be the victim of a homicide in 2010. On top of this our homicide rates have been going down since 1991. If the trend has continued we should be at about 4.4 this year.

I would rather we focus on continued health reform, as health care shouldn't be a financial decision. This includes mental health. We need to work on destigmatizing getting help for your mental problems.

As far as some gun reform: Classes for gun ownership should be a requirement. I don't think my state requires classes, but it should. It's required for a hunting licence, but not for gun ownership. There are classes for concealed carry, but I haven't gone through them yet. The classes need to cover safety and local laws that you should know.

When discussing homicide, it is important to keep in mind that homicide (including justified homicide) only accounts for .7% of all deaths (7/10's of a percent... that's it.) amongst Americans according to the CDC.

With all the time and energy we are spending on this issue, we could do a lot more good for a lot more people.

Found out today that the mother had told a baby sitter for Adam "don't turn your back on him- not even for a minute. Don't even go to the bathroom." And yet she kept guns around this kid, and TRAINED him to use them? Now of course they're going to go for an AWB, which would never have prevented this and is really just a pointless restriction of people's rights, because of this idiot.

There are ~9-10k gun homicide per year, over the last decade, and down almost half of what it was in the 1990s. source

There are [so far] 88 deaths from mass shootings this year, which is not a significant increase in the last thirty years. source1source2

Doing the math that gets you 88 out of ~10k = .0088% of all gun homicides as mass shootings.

Clearly, the vast majority of gun owner ALREADY follow the law. Clearly, 99.9911% of gun owners aren't involved in mass shootings. What are you going to do about the fringe minority? Will they abide by your regulations, your requirements? Will you expect that to raise compliance among the psychotic lunatic? Will you put a possibly hundred billion dollar government program on the backs of taxpayers in already stressed state and federal budgets? Will this cost justify the paranoia of an extremely rare event [but still an extremely horrifying event?]

I looked at the source you mention (boy! you comment a lot), but couldn't find a note in the PDF about them including suicides in their homicide numbers, and they seem to explicitly label the homicide stats as: "From Assault".

Actually, I think, you were replying to an idiotic post comparing "accidental and deliberate gun deaths and injuries" to car accident deaths. An apples to oranges comparison, obviously. The source you provided yesterday (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) does indeed separate gun related homicides and suicides. As do the sources Donkey_Schlong referenced.

Maybe that is what you meant. That some idiot on the internet inflated his/her numbers. It did seem, however, that you were saying that the sources referenced were including suicides in their homicides statistics.

I'm talking about people who don't keep their guns locked up. Mass shootings aren't the only deaths that happen because of guns. There are tons of stories of children injuring themselves or others because they get a hold of a parent's poorly stored gun. Is it really so horrible to want people to be trained for safety when they buy a deadly weapon? We have to get safety training to drive a car, why not to own a gun?

It is frequently assumed that safe-storage gun laws reduce accidental gun deaths and total suicides, while the possible impact on crime rates is ignored. We find no support that safe-storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides.

So basically, the incidence is so miniscule as to be inconsequential statistically [but extremely relevant personally and morally.] The data also shows safe storage laws don't have any effect on the injuries of children [which also has no relevance at all to mass shootings, and especially this one, because the shooter stole the guns, and murdered the gun owner.]

So none of your prescriptions will have any affect, and smarter men than you or I have already studied this [and those two have studied mass shootings for of the last 60 years for over 3 decades -- I think they know more than you are I.]

I don't think 72 dead children in one year is miniscule. Even if they make up a small percentage of gun-related injuries, if their deaths can be prevented, they should be.

What I am interested in is effective policy. Someone above mentioned that safe storage laws were ineffective because they are not followed. I merely suggested that increased training might be a way to increase safe gun ownership. What about that do you disagree with? Why is it so terrible to want people to be trained in how to be a safe (and effective) gun owner?

I don't think 72 dead children in one year is miniscule. Even if they make up a small percentage of gun-related injuries, if their deaths can be prevented, they should be.

I already said: the incidence is so miniscule as to be inconsequential statistically [but extremely relevant personally and morally.] I'd love for people to not die in car accidents. ~35K of them die every year. ~40k die from overdoses. We've already banned drugs, we haven't banned cars. ~600k are dying from heart disease, and ~570k from cancer. Just banning cars, smokes, and booze would save ~1.2million lives a year. Tell me how well prohibition worked?

What I am interested in is effective policy. Someone above mentioned that safe storage laws were ineffective because they are not followed. I merely suggested that increased training might be a way to increase safe gun ownership. What about that do you disagree with? Why is it so terrible to want people to be trained in how to be a safe (and effective) gun owner?

I showed you a study from the Journal of Law and Economics. Those are probably two of the most preeminent scholars that study gun control issues. They found it did nothing to reduce the incidence of child injury/death [which was already so miniscule as to be a statistical outlier.]

If 99.99% of gun owners already have children, or have raised children and have had no problems, how will increased or mandated training do anything? I shouldn't have to explain statistical outliers to you. What happens if we spend a hundred billion dollars on an awareness campaign to reduce the death toll from 72 to 30? Is that an effective use of funds?

I already said it's tragic. It's horrific. It is morally significant. The amount of deaths is not statistically significant.

Why is it so terrible to want people to be trained in how to be a safe (and effective) gun owner?

The vast majority of gun owners already are.

You're making emotional claims, without any facts, and trying to argue your point. The facts don't add up to your point. I'm sorry. I'm with you on the sadness of this, and every other incident. Your prescriptions will do nothing to end it.

They enforce that here in Canada and there is always a tizzy when one of the idiots whines to the media.

The last one was they went to a house when the wife was home and asked to see the guns. She helpfully brought them to the gun safe and unlocked it for them. Problem was that she wasn't the one with the gun license...

Very true. Out of all the people I know with guns, only one keeps it locked in a safe.

Edit: Not sure why this is getting downvotes. It seems like it's true for many other people as well.

The data show that many firearms in homes with children are dangerously accessible. In 9 percent of homes with children and firearms, at least one firearm is stored unlocked and loaded, and in another 4 percent at least one firearm is unlocked, unloaded, and stored with ammunition. This means that in about 13 percent of homes with children and firearms--about 2.6 million children in 1.4 million homes--firearms are stored in a way that makes them most accessible to children. Overall, fewer than half of the U.S. families with firearms and children store firearms locked (either in a locked place or secured with a trigger lock) and separate from ammunition.

Yes. That's why parents have an obligation to teach their kids how to use knives safely, watch what they're doing so they don't try to use them, lock chemicals in cabinets etc.

If my son were emotionally disturbed, then I would probably think about removing knives and drugs...until I could get him stabilized. I certainly wouldn't have guns in the house unless they were secure.

you're really only about .0038% more likely to be the victim of a homicide

And if I only cared about myself, this might be relevant. I mean, what are the odds that any one of us will need extensive mental health care? Pretty slim, I think, and yet we understand that better access to such care would benefit us all.

This study has problems, and does not support the conclusions those citing it are arguing for. The authors themselves admit that their work does not support any causal inference:

"Given the observational nature of the data available, we can directly comment on the association of gun law harmonization and firearm-related death rates, but conclusions regarding causality of the association must
remain interpretive rather than definitive."

This is a very "oh, I could NEVER say something so strong as that the new laws caused the reduction, wink, wink, nudge, nudge" sort of publication. It's hard not to interpret this as intellectually dishonest.

Their p value for the decrease in firearms homicides is 0.15, which does not meet any commonly accepted standard for statistical significance.

They made no attempt to control for any confounding variable other than population (which was inherent in their rate model). At the least they should have included household income. This data is readily available and would be trivial to include in their calculation. As they say, I'll leave it up to you to interpret why they did not.

My favorite detail from this paper, is that if you interpret their data as causal, you're also forced to conclude that stricter gun laws reduced suicide by means other than firearms (figure 1F). Yup. Gun control makes it less likely you won't hang yourself. Also the same figure gives clear indicate of a sharp transient rise in suicides in their data at the same moment as the legal intervention. This does not fit a model of a rate reduction in a poisson process. They make no mention of this or attempt to explain it.

Apparently gun control laws and decreasing the number of firearms increases the per person rate of accidental firearms death (figure 1D).

Dr. Chapman himself downplays a strong interpretation of their model in one of his responses to criticism of this paper:

"We highlighted the difficulty of inferring that the downturn – being so dominated by firearm suicides – could have been readily attributable to the removal of semi-automatic firearms from the community."

Or you can believe Dr Weatherburn, head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics (data provider to the regional DOJ there):

"The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws."

"The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."

Dr Chapman is chairman of a gun control lobby. While the idea that researchers are impartial is a fiction, the more overtly partisan an author is, the more strictly they should apply evidential standards to their own work.

Well, I just did some more googling, and it appears clear this work is fraudulent. The appendixes from this submission to the austrailian senate should be instructive:

Here are a couple choice quotes from email correspondence between the authors and the publishing journal:

Dr. Chapman:

"I imagine that you may wish to send it back to the original reviewers, but; in any case I'm hoping I can successfully implore you to (obviously pending
acceptance) rush publish the paper as a pre-print on the IP home Page'. That will attract lots of attention."

Dr. I B Pless (acting as editor of the journal this study was published in):

"Ordinarily I would send it back to one or more of the original reviewers but I am not sure that I need do so. If you can, without ignoring any of the critical issues raised by the reviewers, especially the statistician, make some substancial cuts, I will probably bypass the re-review and and accept. Not intended as a bribe; I want to move this along quickly."

It's actually a military thing. They are given the guns and the ammunition. Ammunition is inspected regularly by the government to make sure none is missing unreported. If it was, and there was a coincidental shooing, the government would hammer them.

Just so ya know, there is a growing movement in Switzerland to tighten gun regulations. Last year 57% of the voters decided against doing that, but the trends are increasingly anti-gun. It will be interesting to see what happens if they change their laws. I doubt crime will increase. Their society is just so much different than ours.

Switzerland has very strict gun laws compared to the US and aren't "required" to keep them. They are given the option to keep them after their mandatory military service. They then must get a licence to purchase any more guns and are restricted to how many they can have. And they are not permitted to carry their weapons in public unless they are protecting themselves from an authorized specific target, which is usually reserved for security guards.

People seem to forget that we up until the 80's could purchase and own fully automatic weapons and these mass shootings didn't occur.... The guns themselves and access to them is a very small part in why this stuff is happening.

That, and semiauto weapons have been available since the early 1900s that are as deadly as an AR-15... Yet no mass shootings up until recently. If it's simply the presence of guns causing the mass shootings then you would assume they would have been happening ever since the invention of the repeating firearm.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass
shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the
same pattern.

"Figure 1B and table 3 indicate that the rate of total non-firearm homicides increased by an average of 1.1% per year
before the introduction of the gun law and reduced by an
average of 2.4% per year after the introduction of the gun
laws (see row 3, columns 2 and 3, respectively, in table 3).
The ratio of the pre-law to post-law trends differ to a
significant extent (p = 0.05).
Table 2 also shows the total homicides (by all methods) for
the period 1979–2003. In the pre-gun law period, total non-firearm homicides were essentially stable and did not differ
from steady state to a statistically significant extent (table 3).
After the introduction of gun laws, a significant downward
trend was evident in total homicides, and the ratio of pre-law
to post-law trends differed statistically from ‘‘no effect’’
(p = 0.01, table 3). We conclude that the data do not support
any homicide method substitution hypothesis."

I'm not really sure what your point is. You cherry-picked the conclusory sentence in my post, that was backed up by fact. I'm guessing your point is that homicide rates were already declining in Australia and so the gun law had virtually no impact?

First, even if that was the case and the gun law had no impact it certainly helps refute the argument many are making that banning guns would actually increase homicide rates because now only the bad guys have guns. So the legislation hasn't actually hurt anyone.

Second, your data shows absolute numbers of homicides. So I guess we have an infant-death problem too then? I'm sure we have more infant deaths in 2012 than we did in 1789.

Need to look at homicides per capita. That line that goes up and to the right means the data you show is going down and to the right more severely than is shown. Or you could just read the study which already did the per capita analysis, which I quoted, which you ignored

Whilst it's true that crime rose after the ban, this was just a continuation of a long trend and to claim it is a result of the ban is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

This analysis (by a pro-gun website I should note) makes the case for the gun law having a neutral effect overall and snopes has a similar opinion that the statistics are not clear cut but definitely do not show that gun legislation increased crime rates.

It's because the first chart he gives shows the count of crimes, not the frequency per capita (the relevant statistic). Look at the third chart for a graph that shows per capita crimes -- murder, sexual assault, and robbery either stayed about the same or went down. Assault rose.

In Australia they had a forced buyback of firearms from the public, which pretty much everyone complied with. Can you imagine what would happen in the states if the feds turned up at peoples' doors and tried to take their guns? Very soon you would run out of people willing to do that job.

Mass shootings are shitty, they are tragic, but they are just a drop in the bucket in terms of homicides. Despite the fact that there are more guns than ever in civilian hands, homicide in the US has been going down on a yearly basis. There is NO evidence to support that more gun control == less homicide.

Austrailia is an isolated country. Meaning Its not connected by land to other countries. Its gun bans are a much more realistic goal. Japan has also had similar success due to its also being an island. I just don't think its feasible to ban guns in America. Plus who doesn't enjoy some good target practice or shooting sport clays.

It led to a decrease in firearms DEATHS AND SUICIDES. I wonder if they counted suicides as deaths......

Want to know what happened to non suicide firearms deaths? They rose or stayed level in the years following.

Want to know what happened to the rates of violent crime after the ban? Do I even have to say it?

The lack of mass shootings has more to do with the cultural safety net for the poor in different countries than with gun laws.

But I'm sure you and the article's author knew that and would never deliberately deceive people with statistics......congratulations asshole, you are guilty of the same time of number skewing that liberals are up in arms about Faux News doing.

I personally don't feel safer if my risk of being a victim of homicide goes down 1%, but my risk of being burglarized goes up 200%. If my risk of being a victim of homicide goes down 5%, and my risk of being burglarized goes up 20%, then hey, I'll take those odds.

According to US government data in 2008 if only criminals, people committing felony crimes, had guns the murder rate in the US would have dropped from about 14000 to about 2500. Criminals don't kill the majority of people, normal people do.

This is exactly what the founding fathers didn't want to happen when they authored the 2nd amendment. They are now a disarmed people.

Look, enacting the reforms in the US would lead to the LARGEST black market of firearms ever. It would take the guns away from honest, law-abiding citizens and leave us defenseless against criminals that don't follow those laws. This may stop depressed white males from committing mass murders, but the murder, assault, and hot-burglary rates would easily rise.

To be disarmed, first one must be armed. Apart from times of war we were never armed in the first place, except for those who needed a weapon for vermin control, such as farmers, or for law enforcement. Our police did not start carrying firearms regularly until late in the 20th century.

Nor did, or do, the vast majority of us wish to be.

The concept of justifying the right to bear arms on the basis that we may need to fight our own government is simply incomprehensible to us in the 21st century. We tend to trust out leaders, but if they betray that trust we vote them out. We don't shoot them.

Actually, I agree with the fourth. A quite different situation. However, you are right about one point.

I reckon our own constitution is well overdue for review and reform by the appropriate processes of consultation, public discussion over several years and putting referenda to the people at an appropriate future time. We, like you, have several anachronisms in our constitution which are irrelevant in the modern world.

except for those who needed a weapon for vermin control, such as farmers, or for law enforcement.

The Second Amendment wasn't written for farmers and police. It was written so a tyrannical government could not subjugate the people. And if this all of a sudden isn't a concern, I'd like to know what reality you're living in.

If it is a concern in your country then you have been doing something wrong since 1776.

I don't believe you have. You are now in the 21st century. Things have changed. You get the opportunity to vote the government out every four years; what more do you need? Has any President or government ever refused to leave when voted out in the history of your nation? None has, and as far as I can see none ever will.

Get real.

As I mentioned in another reply, even if that unlikely event occurred your civilian weapons would have as much chance of resisting the combined might of the US Army, USAF, USMC and the USN as the Army of Lichtenstein has of defeating them. Considering they don't have an army, that is no chance at all.

To be disarmed, first one must be armed. Apart from times of war we were never armed in the first place, except for those who needed a weapon for vermin control, such as farmers, or for law enforcement.

I'm fairly liberal and pretty anti-gun but what are you on dude?

EVERYBODY needed a gun for food when this country was founded. The gun was a tool of protection, resource gathering, and daily life then.

That works in a civil society. But what happens when power corrupts? What happens when votes are rigged? We have instances of voter manipulation here, just like in most parts of the world. I could never trust my political leaders, even with their good intentions.

I can respect that it's what you want. Just understand that people like me protect the rights of people that think like you in the US. We are a society based on independence and civil rights, even if it has to be exercised by force. The beautiful thing is my government is afraid of it's own people (a healthy fear that is) and the advancement of a police state is something that we resist as Americans.

Gandhi said, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

Oh dear, where are the NRA when the NSA records your conversations without a warrant?

Wheres the militia when your Government ignores the constitution and smash the cameras of peaceful protesters and observers?

Why do your police need to send military style armed police on patrol in your own self secure, 'totally not a police state' society?

Is it because you have a huge population, under arms, generally living in fear of each other because you know your entire neighborhood has more firepower than an army company? Where assault weapons are sold in supermarkets?

Whereas almost gun-less UK has a less corrupt government and the Government still fears the people and the media. It's crazy, but it could be because we're a democracy...like the USA, remember that word? Its the system were instead of having to change Government by killing the old one, you just vote it out. That's why they fear you, not your guns.

As a Libertarian, this scares the shit out of me, actually (the NSA). I'm a strict constitutionalist and I think that it's unforgivable to encroach on our freedoms. I've seen such paramilitary police in action right below my window at night.

First, the US is the same as the UK. They are a huge surveillance state with rights that are not as concrete as our system. I know that my government is pushing for the same. I'm part of a movement that fights large government and I vote accordingly.

I also know that my vote is the most powerful political tool I can wield. Just because I'm pro-gun doesn't mean I'm oblivious. And of course I know about democracy, since my country is the prime example of it.

See, there is a huge culture gap between you and me. You think I live in fear. Right now I sit in my house, listening to raindrops on the roof. I know that if anyone enters my home, they will have to deal with my Mossberg 500. My wife, all 5'2" of her, is trained in using that shotgun as well, which is the ultimate equalizer between the sexes. I feel REALLY safe right now. When I go outside, I'm upset that I can't carry (CCW), because that's what stopped the mall shooting in Oregon on Tuesday. BTW I live in CA, the no 1 ranked anti-gun state in the US. I believe that good people can be entrusted to arm themselves. It deters crime in my country. The city of Kennesaw, GA is a great example of that.

But you won't understand that, since your ideas of guns is from a different culture. Don't mock me for that. Instead, try to understand it. I'm a rational human on the other side of the globe, not some trigger happy ignorant religious hick American (or attach any other stereotypes if you will).

I agree, we've lost a lot of our freedoms too, and it's terrible. What I was trying to get at is that even though your nation's populace is so well armed, you still have these problems of surveillance and intrusion by the government.

You think I live in fear.
Well I am generalizing, but I imagine it's rather self perpetuating. You have a pistol, well the criminal might have a rifle, crap I better get a shotgun and so on...oh crap what if he's wearing a vest! etc. etc.

Here, general worst case is they have a knife.

See, there is a huge culture gap between you and me.

I think the gap is this, and it crosses over into lots of areas between Europeans and Americans.

Here, after Dunblane (a school shooting in Scotland), as a society the UK sat down and said, how can we prevent more children being gunned down? Is it worth restricting the ability for people to own guns, the majority of whom are law abiding, to help prevent more shootings?
And we said yes, no more handguns or automatic weapons and a more strict method of application.
Now guns are still 'easy' to get hold of, its just we don't have the culture. Hell I love shooting. When I was in the Cadets I went as much as possible, I'm a rural dweller and my neighbors all go deer hunting in the season.
But I understand that even though I know I'd be safe with a pistol or a rifle, and I'd love to have one for target shooting or popping the occasional pesky squirrel, it's not worth the risk of even one crazy getting hold of one, or an angry spouse, or a distressed teenager. Because once you have a gun in your hand you have power that far exceeds any physical ability of your own.

If you want to stab someone you have to catch them, hold them and thrust that metal into them enough to kill them. A gun, you just point and squeeze, no effort at all and you've ended a life.

In the US the onus seems to be more on individual responsibility rather than societies responsibilities to its members. All the US news items seem to focus on the motive, the mental health of the perp and trying to make sure they were a loner/weirdo/crazy person. They never, ever try and tackle the root of the problem. After 9/11 they didn't say well, it's the individual responsibility not to bring bombs onto planes, or try and hijack them. They said right, we're going to make sure people can't get easily do this again. Hence the giant pain in the arse that is the TSA. But has a plane been hijacked recently? Nope.

With guns though, no one from the mainstream says 'right, lets make it harder for people to get hold of tools that allow them to kill loads of other people with ease' they say 'arm the teachers! Or hire guards for schools! Or put more money into mental health (that's gonna work well with private insurance lol)'.

See what I'm getting at?

I'm a rational human on the other side of the globe

And thats great, enjoy your guns, I'm kinda jealous. But remember, those "trigger happy ignorant religious hick American[s]" can get hold of guns so easily too, you can't always guard against them, as this tragedy shows, so why not take their ability to so easily kill away from them?

Why not ban semi autos and high capacity magazines? How about very strict rules on handgun ownership, with compulsory exams and/or psychological testing in addition to the standard background checks?
If you want a gun for hunting or home defense a few extra days of waiting and some evenings taken up at your local range doing the tests is a small price to pay for thousands of lives lost every year to guns isn't it?

I understand that there is the problem of all those guns currently in circulation but that is surmountable.

Fundamentally, and back to the point, I feel that the argument of protecting against a tyrannical government is farcical at best. Use almost any other, home defense, that you like guns, everyone's got one why not me? Just not "THE GOVERNMENT GONNA COME GET ME!".

Well stated point, with many that I agree with. I agree that for me, guns are more important immediately than for an unlikely rebellion against the government. It's a necessary use of force in a gun-saturated culture. Understand that I'm a well-trained 6'3" 245lb male (12+ years BJJ and martial arts) and eliminating guns would be awesome for someone like me. It would suck for my wife. I hear you on the knife vs. gun point. I'm trained in knife fighting and I carry a folder on me at all times (except in govt buildings and schools). I'm ready to use it. My wife, on the other hand, would be at a disadvantage.

See, the funny thing is that guns can be safe when used by the right people. My wife used to be scared at shooting ranges. She would comment, "Well what if the guy next to you wants to kill you?" Now she gets it. She understands that cowards like the shooter in New Town won't make it far at a shooting range, so they choose a "gun free" zone. The theater in Colorado was "gun free" (designated by the company in 2009) in a state that allowed CCW by law-abiding citizens. The Oregon mall shooter from Tuesday was stopped at only 2 kills because a citizen with a CCW confronted him (but didn't shoot him because of the bystanders in the background).

So, I believe in gun control if it's done correctly. I don't agree with taking away my rights. I do agree with taking them from criminals. Background checks work. Assault weapon bans don't (most crimes are committed with handguns). A great example is when you look at "hot burglary" rates in the US vs. UK. In the US, it's somewhere around 13%. In Canada and the UK, in hovers above 50%. Guns actually deter crimes over here. When CCW laws are enacted, crime doesn't disappear, but it moves to where there is less resistance. Car jackings go down, but car thefts go up. Getting robbed at gunpoint goes down when the criminal doesn't know if the person is armed, so he will wait for a less confrontational way to steal a wallet.

So I believe that guns should be in the hands of responsible and upstanding citizens, like what you have in Sweden. Unfortunately, shootings like the one in New Town make people who don't understand guns push for legislation that takes guns away from law-abiding citizens. Criminals are excited, since now they can commit crimes with guns (since they don't follow gun laws) against people guaranteed not to have any. I think that happened in the UK, but you would be able to enlighten me on that. When you said the worst that happens is they have a knife, well don't criminals also have guns illegally?

Oh, and high cap magazines aren't really necessary (I live in CA where it's already law). But realize that with those tight restrictions, 1) only law-abiding citizens follow them (criminals still have high cap magazines) and 2) it's a slippery slope that leads to taking all guns away from those citizens (especially with gun registration).

lol you make me laugh, america has a massively corrupt government, and your guns have done nothing to fix it because your living in a world of propaganda from lobbyists for big business, money buys everything in America, and the NRA has alot of it!

I own four guns and I'm not in the NRA. The NRA does have influence, but it's backed by a huge pro-gun following. There is also a large anti-gun movement that thinks like antibull. In your country, they make sense. In my country and my reality, they sound sheltered and idealistic.

So what is making you laugh? Do you think I'm delusional and I'm holding on to my gun as big corporations drain my savings account? Please give me something to learn from, instead of ridicule. Otherwise your comment is a waste of time.

Oh, an island that has no contiguous country that can supply illegal guns didn't have a shooting for a decade? Sounds like it just took 10 years for guns to find their way back into the hands of the countries criminals.

Take all my upvotes ever for having a scholarly article. I tag people who do that so I can upvote them multiple times.

I guess the only opposition I'd have with the article is Australia =/= USA, and mass shootings are statistically insignificant. The gun death total though was interesting. (Only read the abstracts, sorry).

But guys, it's not the same at all! The US is a special flower and there is no evidence that stricter gun laws would cause less firearm deaths in the US. Sure, it is true for every single developed country. But I love freedom and it's so fun to shoot guns LOL three 9/11 worth of dead people every year is well worth the immense power I feel when I'm holding my gun. If you don't have a gun then you cant be the hero in those situations where I stop the criminals that I play in my head.

TL;DR Gun Control, or lack there of, does not prevent violence. Countries with greater income inequalities, institutionalized poverty, and unequal access to health care, are more violent than ones that are more equitable.

Countries with the least violence are those with a financially equitable Mono-Culture (few minorities, thus discrimination is not institutionalized).

Crime rates have been falling everywhere in the developed world since the '90s, and that's completely independent of guns. Just like cars are now safer than they used to be, whether or not you wear a seat belt, but that doesn't mean that wearing a seat belt is useless.

We actually can't wait to be lectured on gun control by the man who's administration funneled hundreds of guns to the Sinaloa drug cartel without the knowledge and approval of the legitimate Mexican government. Hundreds of people (and one government agent) died thanks to B.O.'s A.G. (who still is being held in contempt of Congress BTW.)

Those of use on the RKBA side do have statistics on our side. Crime continues to go down here in the U.S. as the so called "assault weapons ban" sunset; state after state becomes "shall issue" for everyone who is law-abiding and fulfills the training requirements; and as the Supreme Court finally declares that the 2nd Amendment actually still means what they said it means back when they debated passage during the first session of Congress.

There needs to be some reform in this country, as too many people are scared and clinging to firearms as the solve-all; this only begets more violence. I've proposed numerous times since the shooting in Colorado a psych eval be done by a state psychiatrist at every purchase. This helps with the mental health aspect of the issue we are facing, and helps those who are troubled get the help they need. As for those who say people will find a way to buy weapons on the street, that isn't as common as many would like to believe as most instances of gun violence are committed by those who legally own the firearms used. And as for those who say that sick individuals will still find a way to carry out such evil, 20 kids in China are still alive because instead of being shot, they were stabbed. Granted, it's not a solve-all, but it's a step up from the violence we've seen this year

How would that have helped in this case? The weapons were purchased by another person, and in any case, such tests are hardly foolproof. Who is liable if someone with mental health problems gets a gun? Such issues can't be resolved in a piecemeal fashion. You have to have a comprehensive and well funded mental health system that provides ongoing assessment and care. What you are talking about is preventing people with poor mental health from aquiring firearms, but it doesn't actually prevent that person from obtaining them if they really want to.

Look at the mother though, it was because she was a doomsday prepper that she had all the weapons she did. A psychologist would see that as unhealthy. And I already addressed your last statement that has been proven false, the mentally unhealthy haven't been able to acquire illegal weapons as much as people would have you believe, as in the past 10 years gun trafficking has been low (even with operation Fast and Furious)

Look at the mother though, it was because she was a doomsday prepper that she had all the weapons she did. A psychologist would see that as unhealthy.

So she was crazy? She had a diagnosis? Unlikely. Perhaps eccentric.

And I already addressed your last statement that has been proven false, the mentally unhealthy haven't been able to acquire illegal weapons as much as people would have you believe, as in the past 10 years gun trafficking has been low (even with operation Fast and Furious)

I've proposed numerous times since the shooting in Colorado a psych eval be done by a state psychiatrist at every purchase.

LOL, there were 11 million guns sold in the US in 2011, that's over 30,000 per day. Do you know how long it takes to do a psych eval on someone, are they gonna give them a little 1 page questionare asking the proposed gun owner if he's gonna kill anyone? What you're proposing is absolutely useless.

Stricter licencing, registration and regulation of the type of guns available, would be very helpful. I am sure every gun lover on reddit is especially sane and well trained. But gun training and screening programs would make it harder for some nuts to get guns.. Automatic weapons should not be in the hands of civilians. Nor should huge clips. Gun shows and private dealers will sell to anyone, Gun lovers should learn that uninhibited rejection of any and all gun regulation is hurting your cause and you will eventually pay the price.

The Australian Institute of Criminology has stated that gun crime in Australia was steadily decreasing since the 60s.[source]

Here's a piece of interesting info:

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives". Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice

Lee, Wang-Sheng; & Suardi, Sandy (2008-8). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 17/08 (Melbourne Institute): 28. ISBN 978-0-7340-3285-0. (I can't find a non-paywalled link to the full text that works at the moment, but there are always copies floating around the 'net.)

It debunks the methods in the Chapman paper in the OP, and several similar studies with variously contradictory conclusions. It then explains the contradictory conclusions by determining that there just wasn't a correlation between gun control measures and most of the things people would like to imagine there would be. More explicitly, everyone on either side trying to use the Australian NFA to make a social utility argument about gun control is full of shit.